#or understanding of nuance

[selfcontainedinferno]

actually i dont care what words someone uses to describe themself and i dont know why you guys do. what are you a cop? why is it so important to you that everyone only uses labels that you find easy to digest and understand? i actually do not fucking trust you if youre going to police my identity or anyone elses

[star-pup01]

I was promised a vessel and got thrown into a teenager who has their own shit to work through that is not being helped by this situation, and if I ever give up then the world is covered in darkness.

[wizardnuke]

"i hate microlabels" yeah i also kind of dislike the idea of putting ourselves and our identities into very specific boxes, i think it can be really isolating- ohh wait you mean you think they're invalid. ohh no that's not the way to look at it. killing you

[knox-knocks]

Andrew: no girlfriends

Aaron: okay

Andrew, gay:

[heartorbit]

if we could stay connected, just like this

[homunculus-argument]

The whole "no gendered pronouns" thing is probably the most commonly known/brought up fun fact of the finnish language, but there's more to it. There's a pronoun distinction of human/nonhuman, and while many dialects don't bother with the hän-pronoun at all, and simply refer to both humans, animals, and inanimate objects as "se", wherever the human pronoun is used, it also encompasses any and all creatures that the speaker considers sufficiently sapient or sentient to be considered "a person". This covers gods and goddesses, humanoid supernatural creatures (with a distinct That Is Not A Person exception for zombies), aliens, and occasionally pets. Everyone knows someone who refers to their dog as "hän".

But the plural "they" also has a distinction of hän/se, with the same logic as he/him - who/whom, making a distinction between "they" who are people, and "they" that are either animals or objects. The dialects that don't use the human pronoun don't make this distinction either, but if someone is clearly speaking in formal finnish that refers to people as hän, but uses "ne" instead of "he" when referring to people, it's a very understated but nonetheless clear way of implying that those people are not people.

So finnish has:

They (singular, person pronoun) They (plural, of people) They (plural, inanimate/non-sentient/degoratory)

[tobiasdrake]

My understanding of evil, age 0-10: MY NAME IS SMOG SMOKESLY AND I RUN THE POLLUTION FACTORY, IT PRODUCES POLLUTION!!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

My understanding of evil, in my teens: You can't really boil things down to good and evil. People are complicated. Everyone is the hero of their own story, and someone who seems evil to you is actually doing their best from their own perspective. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, you'd understand. There is no such thing as evil.

My understanding of evil, in my twenties: Look, it's basically just tribalism. We are all necessarily thrust into competition with one another. There are always going to be winners and losers. Whining about evil is just being upset that you lost the game.

My understanding of evil, in my thirties: MY NAME IS SMOG SMOKESLY AND I RUN THE POLLUTION FACTORY, IT PRODUCES POLLUTION!!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[inkskinned]

you know, you know. no gods, no masters, no kings on pedestals. everyone is fallible. death of the author. you know! you are balanced about your intake of media - you allow the wiggle room, the grace, the gratitude, the skepticism. nobody above criticism.

but still. a weird gut-punch feeling, something akin to betrayal. you read the article. surprise! an author you love is actually: a serial fucking predator.

well, shit. what now. no, you knew he was a person (all people are), but now you're wondering - what have i overlooked by accident? what messages have i internalized that are strange and cruel? and also, like, what the fuck?

his actions lay a thick glaze on top of everything. like each place is now ruined, opaque in a new way. but okay, fine, you've done this before. you knew better, right? you've been betrayed by many a cherished childhood author.

still, this stickiness. fuck. can you pick up that book again. will you read it to your children. you've recommended it to others - will you ever do that again? and of course, of course, no parasocial relationships. you were theoretically above this kind of sentiment. but the artist informs the art, right.

so it's not something as clear-cut as feeling he owed you, specifically (a stranger) better behavior - just that you kind of, in a distant and odd way... sort of trusted him to do better. it's not like a real trust or something speakable, just the faint hope that the product (good books) was a thin representation of the soul. now it feels like the product (good? books?) was a mask. in some small or insignificant way, your previous support of this person lent them power. your money and your time and your laughter.

and the thing is - you have this terrible, echoing sensation. how many times will this happen? over and over. you find out that the singer you love is actually a predator. you learn over drinks that your favorite high school english teacher is in jail for what he did to her. you listen to the news idly and suddenly discover that a woman you used to idolize has been abusing her kids for an actual eon.

what can you touch without the static melting off. you can't even really complain about it too much (you were supposed to know better, and besides, you don't want the same re-split "it's not your fault, love what you love" basic advice), but now it's here. somehow, it feels like - you let him into your life.

it's not that things need to be pure or an artist has to be like, endlessly perfect, mindful. demure. it's more just this terrible truth that has been replayed through your veins so often it feels criminally vain. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. did you want any one person to be worth that power?

it's just that he wrote books where he seemed to understand that. he seemed to know about hierarchies and unfair systems and bigotry and privilege. you thought they were books about what it means to struggle. you thought they were about having power and still using it for good rather than for control. he spooned you a narrative of being a good guy, a kind soul. you fucking bought what that fucking monster sold.

maybe that's why they were fantasies, after all.

[baba-is-blog]

baba whats ur opinion on ladybugs,,,,

BABA IS CONFLICTED

ORGANISM IS IMPORTANT AND CONNECTED

ECOLOGICAL NICHE IS FILLED

BABA HATE LADYBUG

STATEMENT IS COEXIST

[inafieldofstarflowers]

and what if i said nicky is actually really important to neil’s development as a character and also to neil as a person? are we ready for that conversation

[facethemuses]

being an alfred pennyworth fan is so strange because so many of you are wrong. what do you mean he's a saintly father figure there to quip at everyone and be the voice of reason???? you don't even KNOW him.

alfred 'abandoned his daughter to run off to gotham only to not raise bruce as well, who promoted all of bruce's worst habits like the #boymom he is, who chose bruce over the children but still didn't let him forget that he was not his father, who lied to the family about julia's existence and blamed her for their bad relationship' pennyworth?

I love him because he ruins everything he touches and is the world's worst father. you like him because you have fundamentally misunderstood him as a person.

you're saying THEE #1 dc toxic boy mom is a saint? what the fuck are you guys ON about?

[herbgerblin]

Kendrick Lamar uses power word kill!

[creampuffqueen]

i say this with all my heart, from one person who cares about animal welfare to hopefully many others:

please take the term “factory farm” out of your vocabulary when discussing animal welfare

talking about the welfare of livestock and livestock production is incredibly important! all animals deserve to have the best welfare possible, regardless of if they’re going to end up on a plate or not

but the term “factory farm” does not actually discuss animal welfare in the way so many people seem to assume it does

for starters, “factory farm” is not an actual industry term. it doesn’t actually mean anything, because what constitutes a factory farm is completely subjective. you will never see the phrase “factory farm” in any kind of published research or official article because, again, it doesn’t mean anything

sure, the phrase definitely has connotations. and the connotation is the issue here. people use the term “factory farm” as a shorthand for… well, typically, “farming practice i don’t understand but think looks bad”

the term isn’t something neutral. it is specifically designed to create a negative image when you hear it. someone says “factory farm” and most people imagine large amounts of animals kept in bad condition

the key here: large amounts of animals

the size of a farm does not dictate the welfare of the animals on it. there are plenty of large farms with hundreds, thousands of animals that take stellar care of their livestock. there are small farms with only a couple animals that live horrible lives

the size of a farm is not the issue when it comes to animal welfare, but rather the practices used on the farm. sometimes they do go hand in hand, yes. there are some practices that are only necessary because of the amount of animals present

but say that

there are other terms that are actually industry terms that work better for these scenarios. try “conventional farming” “industrialized farming” “commercialized farming”. these actually have meanings that you can then jump off of into talking about animal welfare practices on these farms

“factory farming” is just a term used to paint farming in an entirely negative light, when what actually makes a farm have good or bad welfare depends on so many other things

[mofsblog]

Defending Ending 2

Okay I've seen a lot of discourse around the "True Ending" of Clinical Trial and I just wanted to give my take on it. Spoilers under the cut

I know a lot of people didn't like Ending 2's light and happier tone and it being the True Ending and felt like it absolved Lee of any consequences and just put Angel in a dangerous shitty position, isolated with a murderer and argue that it goes against the whole point of the game… But I just really don't view it like that. To me, Ending 2 reinforces some of the game's central themes surrounding consent, neurodivergency and societal neglect.

While I do think Lee can be manipulative (ESPECIALLY in the Reject route) and consistently hides things from Angel, I do think the Accept route that leads into Ending 2/the True Ending is a product of Angel's own anatomy as much as Ending 1 is. While Angel chooses to forgive him initally for the shrine thing, they don't dismiss or downplay what he did either. While they do display some unhealthy thought patterns (the idea that they never thought someone would ever pay so much attention to them <- which is a belief absolutely fueled by self hatred) that could contribute to their forgiveness, they don't let that blind them from the inherent fucked upness of what Lee's done. This isn't a "Wow, you did nothing wrong. Let's date!" situation. It's a "You fucked up and you hurt me but I'm willing to give you another chance, if you change for the better" situation.

Same thing with the revelation of the murder. Angel does not downplay how upset they are to appease him. Even when they acknowledge Lee killing Brandon probably prevented him from harming future victims as he's a repeated offender who likely wouldn't stop, Angel still acknowledge that Lee didn't know that when he killed him. Angel is consistently able to voice their grievances with him and call him out on the wrongness of his actions, which is why I feel pretty comfortable stating that Lee and Angel's relationship, no matter how fucked up, toxic or unhealthy, is not an abusive one because Angel is always able to voice their issues with him and he is more than willing to listen.

The player, and by extension, Angel is also explicitly given the choice on whether or not to forgive him with both revelations (I especially like that Angel's given the choice to basically back out of the relationship, even after they accept the shrine thing, after the murder reveal), highlighting their agency. Yes, you can absolutely argue that Angel's decision to forgive Lee twice is likely influenced by their loneliness and need for connection and that does make their relationship a bit unhealthy (and interesting/hj) but again I don't think it's abusive.

I also want to point out that even if the Accept route, Angel gives Lee conditions. They don't just accept him willy-nilly. They want him to actually listen to them.

I think that Angel's ultimate decision to forgive Lee isn't just to date him, it's to give him another chance at becoming a better, more rounded person. A large part of the whole game is about how society (the education system and the medical system) tends to fail neurodivergent people, especially those most in need of help. Angel and Lee literally bond over their different experiences of neurodivergency (or implied neurodivergency on Lee's end) and how ultimately society failed both of them (with neither of them managing to succeed in ways they wanted because the system wasn't built for people like them).

There's also the prevalent mentions and implications of past punishments that we can observe through some of Lee's dialogue. He's canonically an ex Mormon, who was probably consistently punished (and abused) for any wrongdoing (some of which we can assume could come down to traits of his neurodivergency as it's not too uncommon for autistic children to get misunderstood and mistreated). Similarly, we know that Angel was put some level of physical abuse and mistreatment by their school in an attempt to "correct" their left handedness and even then it's implied that's only one example of them being abused by the education system.

Both Lee and Angel know what it's like to be punished and hurt after displaying a 'weakness' or a mistake. They've both been hurt by the notion that punishment is necessary to improve a person, which is why I find the Accept route so powerful. I've seen a lot of people complain that Lee doesn't go to jail or face "tangible" consequences but the way I see it, prison would make him worse and remove any chance he has of healing. While fucked up, illegal and his fault, his actions are still partially a product of his upbringing and the lack of support and therapy for him. He specifically mentions that he never went to therapy so he could get his job. Lee is partially the product of an unaccomodating society as much as Angel is. (Also I could go on for hours about how his Mormon upbringing probably skewed his entire view on how relationships are supposed to function and probably made him think love has to be in the form of devotion)

The way I interpreted it. Angel wasn't coerced into staying with a dangerous, harmful person. Angel sees parts of themselves in Lee and is giving Lee a chance neither of them were ever given in a life. They're creating a new life together where mistakes and fuck ups aren't instantly met with punishment or harm. Yes, Lee fucked up horrendously, violating their trust and ignored their wishes but they're both willing to acknowledge that and work on it because maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fucked up without facing an abusive 'punishment' afterwards. Maybe for once, one of them's allowed to fuck up and be given room to grow and improve. And maybe for once, Angel gets to choose how they want their life to go.

No, most people probably wouldn't have made the same choices as Angel but its still their decision to make. Yes, it's likely influenced by their pre existing loneliness and trauma. Yes, Lee would have to put a lot of work in to change himself and that will take time and there's likely some unhealthy beliefs he'll always struggle with. Yes, Lee and Angel's relationship is far from conventional or completely healthy, but fuck man, I think they're giving eachother room to figure it out together and idk, there's something beautiful about that to me.

They're both very mentally ill but they're trying and there's something about that that I find oddly comforting. Most media with the yandere trope never really provide the option for the yandere character to actually try to reflect on their actions and maybe learn better ways to cope and honestly I was so sure that both endings would involve someone dying in some way because these types of stories don't tend to go well. Usually, after a certain point, a character's just framed as "too" far gone, "too" mentally ill, "too" fucked up and beyond saving and they usually die a tragic or poetic death (i.e like Ending 1). But Angel looks at Lee and his actions and decides fuck it and to say no to that. They make the choice to give Lee another chance any way after what he's done because they don't see him as irredeemable. I just really like the way they both get to live in the end and make a better life together and what that says about neurodivergent and mentally ill people.

[marciaillust]

Asterism book cover

[uncanny-tranny]

Basically, my philosophy around disability fakers is: I would rather a thousand people fake a disability than have one disabled person suffer without care, aids, compassion, or any help.